Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -15.2x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -20.7%. (2010–2025 historical series)
Price-based multiples — how expensive the stock is relative to earnings, sales, book value, and cash flow
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $2.1B | $2.3B | $700M | $200M | $184M | $259M | — | — | — | — | — |
| Enterprise Value | $1.3B | $1.5B | $656M | $197M | $161M | $211M | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/E Ratio → | -15.22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | 1.78 | 2.62 | 6.43 | 2.77 | 2.14 | 2.32 | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
P/E links to full P/E history page with 30-year chart
Enterprise-value multiples — capital-structure-neutral measures of total business value
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Margins and return-on-capital ratios measuring operating efficiency
Full margin charts and quarterly trend are on the Earnings History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Profit Margin | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -20.7% | -20.7% | -16.0% | -23.7% | -29.1% | -42.5% | -488.3% | -38.0% | -154.9% | -23.1% | -37.0% |
| ROA | -20.2% | -20.2% | -14.4% | -20.6% | -25.6% | -32.3% | -233.9% | -11.7% | -49.1% | -8.3% | -28.7% |
| ROIC | -125.8% | -125.8% | -58.4% | -40.0% | -34.7% | -58.3% | -52.6% | -74.1% | -72.7% | -65.1% | -8.4% |
| ROCE | -25.9% | -25.9% | -56.0% | -43.5% | -28.5% | -38.8% | -33.3% | -33.9% | -30.6% | -26.1% | -8.0% |
Solvency and debt-coverage ratios — lower is generally safer
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.67 | 0.52 |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.90 | -0.40 | -0.04 | -0.26 | -0.43 | -0.26 | 0.31 | -0.24 | 0.12 | -0.48 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | — | — | — | — | — | -98.16 | -68.67 | -3.17 | -18.10 | -11.12 | -7.40 |
Net cash position: cash ($774M) exceeds total debt ($244000)
Short-term solvency ratios and asset-utilisation metrics
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 3178.49 | 3178.49 | 7.01 | 0.88 | 1.90 | 8.55 | 6.55 | 3.93 | 9.01 | 5.50 | 11.98 |
| Quick Ratio | 3178.49 | 3178.49 | 7.01 | 0.88 | 1.90 | 8.55 | 6.55 | 3.93 | 9.01 | 5.42 | 11.98 |
| Cash Ratio | 3170.99 | 3170.99 | 6.53 | 0.41 | 1.83 | 8.33 | 6.36 | 3.74 | 8.85 | 5.41 | 11.89 |
| Asset Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2.22 | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Earnings, FCF, buyback, and dividend yields — total returns to shareholders
Full dividend history and growth charts are on the Dividend History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $93M | $66M | $63M | $63M | $55M | $34M | $25M | $22M | $18M | $17M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 16 years · Updated daily
Live VCP patterns, Cup & Handle overlays, support/resistance, and AI trade plans.
High-probability breakout stocks crossing their pivot across 5 pattern engines.
DCF models, multiple analysis, and analyst estimates.
10-year return with dividends reinvested.
Compare growth, multiples, and margins vs sector.
Quick answers to the most common questions about buying PPTA stock.
Perpetua Resources Corp.'s current P/E ratio is -15.2x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
Perpetua Resources Corp.'s return on equity (ROE) is -20.7%. The historical average is -56.4%.
Based on historical data, Perpetua Resources Corp. is trading at a P/E of -15.2x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Permitting delay and litigation risk
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Valuation Reflects Permitting Premium
Perpetua's P/B ratio of 2.70, while below peers like Coeur Mining (4.08) and Hecla (5.03), appears to embed a significant premium for a pre-revenue developer, suggesting the market prices in a high probability of successful permitting and federal support.
The negative P/E and lack of EV/EBITDA multiples are standard for a pre-revenue company, making P/B the primary valuation anchor. At 2.70, it trades at a discount to the peer average of ~4.5, which may indicate the market is discounting execution risk or the lengthy permitting timeline. However, the premium over book value for a company with zero revenue and a -20.7% ROE suggests investors are valuing the strategic optionality of the Stibnite project, particularly its antimony component, rather than current financial performance.
Negative Returns Reflect Pre-Revenue Burn
Perpetua's ROIC has been consistently negative, ranging from -9.3% to -58.2% over the past ten quarters, indicating that invested capital is being consumed by development costs without generating any operating returns.
The negative ROIC trend is a direct consequence of the company's pre-operational status, where all capital expenditures and administrative costs are expensed against a zero revenue base. The volatility in the metric, such as the swing to a positive 10.5% in 2025Q2, likely reflects non-operating gains or accounting adjustments rather than a fundamental shift in capital efficiency. Until the project achieves production, ROIC will remain a measure of cash burn, not value creation.
Fortress Liquidity Masked by Project Restrictions
Perpetua's current ratio of 12.34 in 2026Q2, derived from a cash balance of $574.2 million, appears to provide a substantial liquidity buffer, but this figure may be largely restricted for project-specific milestones.
The extreme liquidity ratios, which have swung from 1.54 to over 3,000 in recent quarters, are driven by episodic inflows of non-dilutive funding rather than operational cash generation. While the headline numbers suggest a fortress balance sheet, the accelerating quarterly cash burn of over $90 million implies that unrestricted cash could be depleted faster than the ratios indicate. Investors should monitor the composition of the cash balance to assess true operational runway.
Working Capital Metrics Distorted by Pre-Revenue Status
Traditional efficiency ratios like asset turnover and the cash conversion cycle are meaningless for Perpetua, as evidenced by the absence of data for most metrics, reflecting a business model with no inventory, receivables, or payables from operations.
The only meaningful efficiency metric is the Days Payable Outstanding (DPO), which has ballooned to over 24,000 days in recent quarters. This extreme figure does not indicate supplier leverage but rather the timing of large, project-related payments that are not part of a regular operating cycle. The lack of asset turnover data confirms that the company's assets are not yet deployed in a revenue-generating capacity.
The Misapplied Ratio: Price-to-Book
The P/B ratio is the most commonly misapplied metric for Perpetua, as it compares market capitalization to an equity base eroded by $841.7 million in accumulated deficits, obscuring the project's net present value.
For a pre-revenue developer with significant accumulated losses, book value is a poor proxy for the asset's underlying worth. The P/B ratio of 2.70 is misleading because it implies the market is paying a premium for a loss-making equity base, when in reality, investors are pricing the future cash flows from the Stibnite project. A more appropriate valuation framework would be a risk-adjusted net asset value (rNAV) model that discounts the project's projected cash flows, accounting for permitting risk and the strategic value of the antimony resource.